Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Glen, Feb 22, 2010.
Invading Afghanistan: It never works.
Hmmm....sounds like an AH Challenge...
Good to see this is back Glen! I was just wondering the other day
Also, is there any particular reason why you use the word "Global"? I had the feeling it was a word of recent currency and a very cursory search online suggests that the first usage was as late as 1893, from French
Thanks for thinking of us! Global was chosen to differentiate this World War from ours, but I think the case is good for this term to develop and spread ITTL a bit earlier than OTL. Recall the stronger Francophone influences onTTL USA. Also recall that TTL's UK and France have been allies since the 1850s. It is easy to imagine the French coining the term for this war and the Anglosphere rapidly picking up on it.
Nice update but can we please get a world map showing the opposing sides in the current war?
Once we have all the different side conflicts illuminated, I think that may be possible - not easy to keep track of a Global War, donchaknow!
Been away from things for a month so belated commiserations over you're loss. Looks like some good updates and Mexico is out of the enemy alliance. Which might also make the other enemy states in southern America think over their position. [To protect the guilty I won't name them AKA I've forgotten who's fighting who.]
The future of Miskito could be an awkward point. They may well want to rejoin the empire and at least some in Britain will want them to. However controlling one end of a trans-isthmus canal their location is rather sensitive and with a global war still far from won Britain might value the friendship of the new Mexican government more. Hopefully they will get their choice but it may not happen.
In Europe it sounds like things are swinging the Liberals way but probably still a long way to go unless either a moderate peace is negotiated [which after so much fighting is probably unlikely] or the Korsgaardistas start cracking quickly.
Not unless you're Mongol, or Arab and it took a fair bit of doing for them. Suspect that the terrain and logistics plus the military skill of the Sikhs as well as their allies the Russians are going to see very little success. Possibly also some roll back in their empire if things really start to fall apart. What happens to Persia and further east however?
I will have to update that, yes.
Delicate is a good way to describe the negotiations...
Just remember Clinton's 1992 campaign...
That is a question - what do you think?
- sorry that rings no bells in terms of relevance. [Can't remember too much about the campaign either other than he defeated Bush senior].
Depending on the degree of victory and desires of the winners Persia could well lose land to both allied neighbours [i.e. Turks and Sikhs] plus possibly some coastal positions to Britain, if only as influence. Or if allied losses have also been heavy or Britain decides it doesn't want too much of an imbalance in the region it could apply pressure for a more limited peace.
Further east a lot of variables, most especially I can barely remember what was going on. Think Japan was partitioned between pro-British and pro-Russia groups so could see it united under the former. China depends on the situation. [Think southern China, was it something like USC, was moderate and liberal and probably will make big gains against the northern empire. Also was Manchuria independent? Could have a lot of changes there].
We'll see if anyone else in the Peanut Gallery can guess it, then.
Japan was fragmented and under Russian and British spheres, as you say. Yes, Southern China is now very Liberal, whether they will make gains against their Northern aggressors remains to be seen. Manchuria is a Russian puppet essentially. There could indeed be a lot of changes.
Historians debate as to whether the Brazilian incursion into Bahia and the subsequent counterstrike by the Confederation of the Equator to aid the Bahians in liberating themselves. The Republic of Brazil took advantage of British preoccupation with the more direct threats of Europe and North America to invade the black republic that had been seen as a stain on Brazilian pride since Bahia broke away from Brazil in the 1830s. Under the pretext of suppressing bandits who were operating over the border (and to be fair, Bahian bandits had been active for generations in frontier raids), the Brazilians invaded Bahia in 1890. The Bahians fought ferociously, but did not have as advanced of a military infrastructure or the numbers of the Brazilians. Penning Bahians in large, poorly equipped camps (those who didn't take to the wilderness to fight as partisans), the Brazilians seemed uncertain how to deal with their success, such as it was. The small Confederation of the Equator had long seen any aggressive moves against their colorful neighbors as a threat to their own independence. While the Equatorians had only shaky relations with Bahia in peace, in war they were allies, and thus the Confederation launched its own counteroffensive from the north. The Equatorians would have likely been crushed if they had faced the full Brazilian army, but the Brazilians were overextended in their conflict to the south with the UPSA. Between the Equatorians and the Bahians partisans, the Brazilians were forced to abandon the camps and fall back to redoubts near the border.
The Sides in the Global War (blue is the Liberal/West, red is the Korsgaardist/East):
Thanks for the map but I must have missed something. When and why did the USA join the war?
An error since corrected....
Sorry to hear about your loss, Glen. I honestly believe she would have been very proud of this tribute, though.
Actually, Afghanistan has been successfully invaded, occupied, and incorporated dozens of times. It's just that White Empires suck at it, so people assume it's impossible
A fair point....
The Global War entered its end stage in the 1891-1892 period. The Eastern nations greatest achievement, the invasion of the Balkans, became their greatest defeat with the uproar in their rear areas in Wallachia and Moldavia coupled with a Franco-British expeditionary landing to support the resurgent Ottoman army leading to the complete encirclement of the Eastern combined army of the Balkans. While Austro-Hungarians and Prusso-Polish forces were well represented, the bulk of the army was Russian and this defeat was a great blow to the mighty Russian Empire's morale, not to mention that of its allies.
Whereas the Western powers had had to deal with the harsh economic realities of the economic crisis of the 1880s, the Korsgaardian influenced powers had forestalled much of the pain through governmental policies demanding that things be maintained at a growing level of prosperity, regardless of the accumulating costs carried on the books. The intial flush of the Global War had also helped hide this growing economic disparity between perception and reality, but in the end it exacerbated matters. While the Eastern Powers continued winning morale remained high, despite the growing needs for rationing. When defeats began to accrue at the same time rationing became heavily worse, the populace in many nations began to question just what they had given their hears and souls to. The first Eastern Empire to see this discontent lead to the resurrection of revolutionary movements from the past was Austria-Hungary. Particulary in Hungary, where long simmering discontent with the Habsburg dynasty erupted into revolt. The Hungarian tricolor again flew, and an aged Lajos Kossoth was smuggled back into the country to a triumphal march to leadership.
Separate names with a comma.